Peterkin

I don't suppose JCMacSwell has ever met a racehorse or jockey. He just knows.

It did not refer, however to this selection, or any selection in particular. At that time, there was no specific nomination to announce, because there was no vacancy to select for. Most presidential candidates talk about their political agenda when campaigning. Appointing a Black woman to the supreme court during his term in office was part of his stated agenda. I don't recall his ever saying that he would not appoint any other other judges from any other demographic. I thought it was mild levity. I live another 300 klicks away, and still feel too close for comfort. Borders do not contain ideas and attitudes.

OK? To which I responded: I did not and will no ask it. OK? No; I am speaking of him, as are you. Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang, Alexander the Great, Hammurabi, Maratha, Pachacútec, Joshua, Charlemagne, Sundiata Keita, Napoleon, Cortez, Churchill, LBJ... etc. (I do not use the H word except in strict factual historical context.) Exactly. The Law requires peaceable men to turn killer on command. Others fared less heroically. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/a-responsibility-to-fight-why-a-ww-ii-era-judge-jailed-mennonite-pacifists-1.5084337 The Law does not equate war with crime.

I did not and will not ask it. Maybe when you do. Unlikely. You don't even speak the same language. I think so. But it is not criminal, according to the law of any country in the world. You alone equate evil = bad = criminal. The laws of civilization do not; the religions and moral codes of civilization do not. War-mongers are not put into jails - draft-dodgers are.

Nobody can pre-announce anything. You can announce a plan or an intention, which is no more than a statement regarding your current state of mind. You can predict (but not pre-predict), state (but not pre-state), promise (but not pre-promise), pledge (but not pre-pledge), declare (but not pre-declare), proclaim (but not pre-proclaim), publicize (but not pre-publicise), disclose (and disclose prematurely, but not pre-disclose) You can's do anything before doing it. Look again, from a more proximal pov. (It's a tiny misunderstanding, not a federal issue.)

He announced an intention. He did not pre-announce anything.

The 'some reason' is, you can't have a horserace without them, and then all the jockeys would be obsolete. See, it's the horse has to do all the muscle work. What, precisely, is the male jockey going to do with his power advantage? How, precisely, is it used to win races? No. There is a weight-class allowance. If the jockey is too light, they put lead weights in pockets under the saddle. Owners prefer the lightest possible jockey, because the weights are distributed more evenly and don't shift when the rider is posting or leaning forward; standing up in the stirrup so they're not actually astride the horse at all. As to that, women have two advantages.

Do you happen to know the difference between the power to weight ratio of 115lb man/1100lbhorse and the power to weight ratio of a 115lb woman/ 1100 lb. horse? I can't seem to find a comparison chart. Of course, jockeys' weight range from 108 to 118 lb, while thoroughbreds' weights have a slightly wider range of 900-1300lb. which makes the ratio calculations more complicated. A jockey's stirrups are so high that he can exert very little pressure on the horse's flank with his legs. He can kick and spur the horse, which can cause injury to the horse even if done by a 35lb girl, as can the pressure exerted on the horse's mouth through reins and bit. Of course, whipping hurts, no matter who does it. But will a more damaged $75,000 horse really perform better at the top level than a less damaged one?

Would be appropriate, after all this time, to ask what is pre-announced? In the case in point, back in May 2020, the presidential candidate promised that, if elected, he would put a Black woman on the Supreme court - at some time during his administration. A promise can be broken, be impossible to fulfill, or changed by changing circumstances. No announcement was made at that time. At the end of January, 2022 the president announced his intention of appointing a Black Woman to the recently opened Supreme Court position. (By this time, he had had opportunity to discover how practicable that earlier promise was; whether he would need to rescind, alter, modify or postpone it, or whether he could go ahead with a viable nomination.) Intentions can be thwarted by circumstance, in which case a new, different intention would be announced. But that did not happen. At the end of February, he announced his intention to nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson. At that point, the intention was still not a fact; something could still have changed, but the identity of the intended nominee became known, and the nomination was all but certain. On February 25, the president announced the nomination, and the ratification process began. So, why all the angst over a pre-announcement that never happened?

If the fact of war is relevant to the fact of crime, should not the proportions of war casualty and criminality be compared between civilized and uncivilized peoples? When the man says they didn't have criminals, he does not say there was no bad in people; he does not say there was no aggression in people; he does not say there were no conflicts between people. He says they viewed persons as persons, not classes or categories. That is a distinction many civilized people are unable to perceive. Then there is also the question of who makes and enforces what laws for what reasons. But as far as the Indian goes, he was referring specifically to property crime, which occurs in a propertied and property-oriented societies. And there are plenty of grocery thefts motivated by hunger; they just don't make it into the headlines the way sex scandals do.

Oh, those kind of folks. That should not matter in most sports - rugby and American football, maybe. Most sports have rules, which, if respected and enforced, are meant to keep players from injuring one another. And where body size and shape does matter, the physically less suited players - and if most of those are one sex or another, so be it - will simply not qualify for the A league and might for the B or C league. Maybe the top leagues will be predominantly male and the bottom leagues will be predominantly female, but at least small, slim men will finally get a chance to play. It certainly does not matter in horseback riding. All that the prejudice accomplished was that women had to be much better at handling horses in fox hunting or point-to-point , because the side-saddle position kept them at a disadvantage for six hundred years. Control of a horse is not about the rider's muscle-mass: relative to the horse's, the difference between humans is negligible; it's about timing and communication.

https://theconversation.com/why-it-might-be-time-to-eradicate-sex-segregation-in-sports-89305 https://thevarsity.ca/2017/07/31/why-do-we-still-divide-sports-by-gender/ https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-race-to-replace-the-binary-of-mens-and-womens-sports-11583769636 In fact, it's rare for 'folks' to agree on anything at all.

Not all folks agree.

Very good idea. And possibly amusing, watching the organizes try to assemble a short American soccer team and a tall Korean one. Mostly American women would probably end up playing mostly Korean men - which might well be a fairer, cleaner and more enjoyable game all around.

Maybe the old guy was talking about time within his own memory, which didn't go back before 1560. He doesn't look a day over 100. Then again, maybe what everybody [in modern westernized society] knows isn't true .... https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/yes-world-there-were-horses-in-native-culture-before-the-settlers-came

You are unclear on the concept, yet presume to speak for everyone; your 'reasonable' values authorize you to be the sole spokesman for the social norms of the entire 'westernized world. (Which has cast up some real doozies in bossmanship lately.) You interpret 'criminal' as 'bad' and run with your own misconception. Sentence by sentence, you can twist another person's words --- and if the other person disagrees, they are the ones being dishonest.

This is not something i need to lie about. I used to have bosses (and it never once occurred to me that they should be capitalized) I was lucky to work in health care: most of them were doctors and pretty okay. But they had bosses who were administrators and less okay, but still nowhere as crazy-making as corporate executive bosses, of whom I heard much from friends and lovers, mostly in their cups. Then I became my own boss, which was much better. And you speak for 'most', by virtue of....? 'bosses or higher authorities' are not interchangeable concepts, nor are their positions established in the same way, by the same means, or with the same limitations on their power. And now, you also speak for me? Why do you need a boss?

Why do you need a boss?

I would not need to answer questions, even if any had been put to me. If you would like to me to answer questions, give them in the form of a question and I will answer the ones I consider relevant. Sure, just thought I should reiterate it, in case you missed it in on Pg. 3 Out of curiosity, why you need a boss? I've managed without one for over 40 years and feel no worse for the loss.

By some logic, that follows from the preceding quote.

I still do not see the relevance of attitude to climate change as regards the radicalization of extreme political factions. Bu that's okay; I'm obtuse. I was asking what those good points, bad points and common agendas are. Do I? Perhaps. Morocco and The Gambia https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/only-2-countries-are-meeting-their-climate-pledges-heres-how-the-10-worst-could-improve That's admirable. So, the ice caps are no longer melting? California, Washington, Oregon, BC, Siberia, Spain and Australia will not be burning this year? Relieved to hear it! Plastics are no longer choking sea creatures? Butterflies are back? Good! The moderates are taking care of it. To all environmental extremists: stand back and stand by. Anyway, as mentioned earlier, I do not consider this a left-right political issue - the government agencies that compile lists of potential terrorist elements do. They classify all groups driven by ecological and ethical concerns on the left end of the spectrum. Maybe it's a subconscious association. To me, political issues center on power structure, form and method of governance, economic principles, jurisdiction, responsibilities and limits of government, taxation, regulation, legislation, the prerogatives and obligations of citizenship. Again, I suggested no such thing. One may exist and shoot up a church, another may exist and draw pictures on a wall. The existence is equal; the action is not. The effect is not. The extremism is not. But if one end of the spectrum grows more violent, it does stand to reason that the other end will make some attempt to defend itself. In that sense, you're absolutely right: violence does beget violence. The alternative: lying down and allowing oneself to be killed has appealed to some people, but it seems not universally popular.

If you told me the meaning of that sentence, my understanding would be increased.

How do any of those citations about stuff you don't like show that the extreme right includes many well-meaning, and desired agendas held by moderates? That the Black panthers are 1. comparable to Qanon and 2. current and 3. contributing to an escalation of extremism? Oh, you mean this? No, I don't believe you have. OK... So, does that mean 'the moderates' have failed to solve a problem that has been known globally for at least half a century, during which moderates had more power than they have now, and that 'making some progress' amounts to SFA insofar as the fate of the planet is concerned, and is it therefore possible that the disgruntled greens have some basis to believe that moderates will not solve it through moderate means in time to prevent disaster? You mean the thing about some unspecified people screaming on a jet plane about 12 years? No, that really didn't show me the good will of the far right. Of course, it didn't show me anything much, since all I understood of it was that failing to correct inaccurate statements is only almost as bad as mass shootings.

Show me. Show me. (the operative term being 'current') Show me.

In fairness, 'almost' is one of the 10 longest words in the English language.